Author Topic: High Altitude Bombing  (Read 790 times)

Offline peregrin

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 79
High Altitude Bombing
« on: September 27, 2004, 02:53:59 PM »
There's been a few posts lately complaining about level bombers flying low, or dive bombing.  I fly bombers fairly often, and usually level bomb at 10,000ft.  The reason I don't fly higher is that it takes too long to climb that high.  Why would I want to spend 30min to 1hour on a single flight?  So, I thought, what would make me fly higher?

Why not allow bombers to start at 15k or 20k?  Who wouldn't fly bombers high in that case?

Just a thought.
--Peregrine.

Offline mechanic

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11328
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2004, 03:00:49 PM »
not a bad idea!  unrealistic but good idea all the same.

to be honest though, i think most people are complaining at bombers bombing from 10 feet, not 10,000.

personally anywhere between 10,000ft and 15,900ft is perfect. (hate that wind layer after 1k)
And I don't know much, but I do know this. With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2004, 03:06:08 PM »
This might be worth a try if hi-alt spawning is limited to one field, say the same field near HQ were 163's are available.  

If buffs could spawn at 15K from a forward field it would be too easy for buff missions to quickly spawn and pork every enemy field around.

ra

Offline United

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
      • http://squadronspotlight.netfirms.com
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2004, 03:17:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ra
This might be worth a try if hi-alt spawning is limited to one field, say the same field near HQ were 163's are available.  

If buffs could spawn at 15K from a forward field it would be too easy for buff missions to quickly spawn and pork every enemy field around.

ra

Maybe not just one field, but perhaps 3-4 sectors behind the forward fields?  Though this may take a lot of coding to keep the front lines up to date.

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2004, 03:30:23 PM »
make it like that-

if there is an enemey plane lets say closer then 50 miles (remember a sector is 25) then you spawn buffs at 10k.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2004, 03:35:56 PM »
I posted this in the "2 reasons AH2 doesn't work" thread:

Well, maybe it is time to introduce some gameyness to try to get more realistic results.

Say if the nearest enemy base is between 35 and 50 miles away level bombers can airstart at 10,000ft and 180mph indicated airspeed. If the nearest enemy base is more than 50 miles away then level bombers can airstart at 20,000ft, 180mph indicated airspeed.

Is it gamey? Sure is. Will it make the game more realistic? Maybe. It might have a shot. It would certainly increase the number of bombers at altitude.


The bombsite isn't that hard to use. Hitting cities from 22,000ft is a piece of cake. To take out individual hangars I don't go above 14,000ft. I hardly get a lot of practice. It is simply using the calibration routine, holding the marker for more than 15 seconds and not deviating my course by more than 5 degrees after the final calibration.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline peregrin

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 79
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2004, 03:37:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ra
This might be worth a try if hi-alt spawning is limited to one field, say the same field near HQ were 163's are available.  

If buffs could spawn at 15K from a forward field it would be too easy for buff missions to quickly spawn and pork every enemy field around.

ra

Spawining from a rear area defeats the purpose.  If it takes an hour to use bombers realistically, then why spend the time?  if 10k is a realistic enough altitude then that could be the spawing alt.  if bombers were at 15k, then defenders would also have to be at 15k.  If defenders were at 15k, then escorts would have to be at 15k.  If escorts were at 15k, then we would have taken a great big step backward from the horde/vulch/auger strategy.

--Peregrine.

Offline FiLtH

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6448
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2004, 04:05:06 PM »
Why not have a map with high fields spaced around throughout and have them at 10,000. Those would be bomber bases.

~AoM~

Offline yb11

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 118
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2004, 05:14:52 PM »
all we nead is to dubbel the buffs clime rate like it was in air worror :)

Offline MRPLUTO

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 644
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2004, 05:29:53 PM »
10Bears made a map for AH1 of Germany for scenarios which included a field on the western edge from which a plane could launch from 20k.  (You had to click on the northeast corner thingy to launch.)  However, you started with no airspeed, gear down, and engines off.  The first rule is don't panic; just start the engines, raise the gear, and gradually apply power while gently pulling out of a 70-80 degree dive.  Repeating, "Whoa boy......easy, easy now...easy...eeeeeeeeeeasy...", is also helpful.  It was possible to level out at about 15k without losing any drones.

As long as this can be done only when no enemy plane or vehicle is within, as some suggested, 50 miles, that's fine with me.  Karnak put it very well:  "...maybe it's time to introduce some gameyness to get more realistic results."

MRPLUTO

Offline Stang

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6127
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2004, 05:42:01 PM »
If this was implemented, the dweebs would simply use it to get past most of the fighters on the way to target.  Then they would simply dive on the field and do what they do now.

Make em drop in F6 mode only and make the bomb drop flight conditions realistic.  The site is easy to calibrate as well, shouldn't be a problem for anyone.  It doesn't fit the Quake mentality I guess though.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2004, 05:56:11 PM »
There are two main reasons in real life why bombers flew high.

1) fuel efficiency
2) survivability

 Altitude generally had a hit on accuracy, which is why level buffs usually went after targets which are grouped together over a certain area. Pin-point, precision bombing was next to impossible.

 However, in AH most of the targets that actually effect the game are small-scale, tactical targets which need immediate attention and a quick, precision strike to take effect.

 The cities and factories effect the game in a very indirect way, and require a certain precise sequence to have effect on the game. While these are in exterior, the best targets for bomber use, they offer no real meaning in terms of game play.

 Therefore, people tend to strike the airbase itself - which is laid out with components that immediately effect gameplay: ordnance, fuels, barracks, FHs, VHs, BHs etc..

 However, jabo runs provide a much more effective form of destruction against these targets, not to mention survivability and fun. These targets, particularly the hangars which are about the only real viable targets for bombers, respawn within 15 minutes. They need a quick, massive hit. They also immediately effect game play.

 This creates a tendency for the 'casual user' who fly bombers, who have no real experience or practice in it, who just think its cool to fly one, but want to do something meaningful in it, to fly suicidal low alt runs again and again and again.

 So, a combination of several factors:

1) laziness in part of the gamer(they don't want to take the time to get up to alt)
2) massive inefficiency of buffs against such small-scale tactical targets
3) no penalty or fear of death
4) immediate results can be seen without proper means
5) bases that are grouped close together, which makes fuel efficiency useless
6) weak base defenses: heavy 88mm flak is barely effective and its chance of hitting an approaching bomber is very low. light 20mm/37mm acks are too weak to shoot down buffs.

 drives people to misuse the buffs.

 
 This is in fact, not a simple problem. All of the five issues must be addressed at the same time, to see people willingly, and gladly use the bombers as they are supposed to be.

1) laziness should be inhibited by penalties against low-alt bombing

2) buffs need their targets, that effect the game play at a slow rate, but holds very serious results. A strat concept with attritional factor is needed.

3) can't do anything about the fear/death factor

4) penalties against misuse of the bombing system; ie) drops are possible only at the bombardier's position

5) strat target that is located deep inside the country, but has high impact in the game under conditions described at 2)

6) base defenses are strengthened, by implementing 88mm flak batteries around targets which players can control. Very slow rate of fire, but all the flak guns are slaved to the controller of the battery and produces a random burst of flaks, that are grouped towards the general direction the player's aim.

 ...

 Now, imagine those conditions arise in the MA.

 There's a large fuel factory deep inside enemy territory. Hitting it again and again, until total tonnage dropped on it exceeds a certain set point, will result in the decerease of available fuel supply at all enemy fields.

 The buffs themselves, are optimized for high altitudes, and bomb drops are forced to be done only within the bombardier's position, which levels out the plane. Also, the bombs are armed only when it is calibrated.

 Naturally, if the drop altitude is very low, its hard to calibrate stuff. Also, the bomb drop is forced at the bombsight view only, which means no squirming around or lame-prettythang dive bombings.

 Also, many targets are surrounded by manned flak batteries, that are too slow firing to kill multiple nimble fighters, but can wreck havoc on a low approaching bomber formation.

 ...

 So under these conditions, will people still think it is a worthy effort to go kamikazeing enemy bases, when it is thoroughly guarded by manned flak batteries, to hit a small sized target that stays down for only couple of hours max...

 Or, will they go towards the juicy target just right for the buffs, that significantly effects the gameplay at a seriousness that is much greater than even the HQ? (also, these targets will be at least 25 miles away from the nearest airbase, so defenders can't just simply reup as soon as they die, and catch up with bombers again)

 
 I'm thinking the latter. If we want people to fly bombers right, we need conditions that drives them to fly that way.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2004, 06:11:50 PM »
They will discover the "A20's" 8-500lb bomb load and nose guns. I have flown them NOE and nailed HQ's while the Hoard's gang banged on.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2004, 06:12:35 PM »
Make it physically realistic and let the cards fall where they will.  Cards, planes, bombs, whatever.  The structural model seems pretty lenient with buffs, but I don't really know-- so if it needs fixing then I say fix it.  This is the MA, and gameplay will never be totally realistic with respect to war strategy (nor should it be).  Scenarios fill that role more closely.  Purpose of MA "strat", OTOH, is to encourage contact and variety of contact between opposing forces.

Some people will like to fly buffs historically, others won't.  Beyond physical realism, I don't think we should be forcing flying style in the MA...unless we have a significant game-balance issue to deal with, and even then that should be affected through incentives rather than the physical behavior of the aircraft.

Airstarting buffs will most likely just be gamed like everything else, and we will likely end up no less gamey than now.

As far as the effect of low level buffs on the game balance, to be honest I don't think it is the problem people are making it out to be.  Generally these guys are FAR easier to intercept than the hi-alt buffs, which IMO more than balances the fact that they arrive more quickly and can barf with more accuracy.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
High Altitude Bombing
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2004, 07:21:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by FiLtH
Why not have a map with high fields spaced around throughout and have them at 10,000. Those would be bomber bases.


Bombers Spawning at 10-15K is a silly idea MHO.
And I highly doubt Hightech would implement it.

10 K bases spread around throughout the arena  on the other hand isnt a bad idea at all and would probably be doable. These base wouoldl be highly sought after by furballer and landgrabber alike
all it would take is someone to design a map that has them
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty